A randomized, controlled, multi-center trial comparing the safety and efficacy of zotarolimus-eluting and paclitaxel-eluting stents in de novo lesions in coronary arteries: final results of the ZoMaxx II trial.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this prospective, randomized, single-blind controlled clinical trial was to compare the effectiveness of a zotarolimus-eluting stent (ZoMaxx™) with a paclitaxel-eluting coronary stent (Taxus™ Express(2)™) in patients with angina pectoris and a single native coronary artery lesion between 10-28 mm in length and 2.5-3.75mm in diameter. METHODS: Patients were enrolled at 75 international institutions between June 2005 and November 2006. RESULTS: 1099 (1672 originally planned) patients received 557 ZoMaxx and 542 Taxus stents: cohorts were well-matched for diabetes (27% vs. 27%), reference vessel diameter (2.73 ± 0.46mm vs. 2.74 ± 0.45mm) and lesion length (14.8 ± 6.7mm vs. 14.3 ± 6.4mm). Nine month clinical and angiographic follow-up was available in 1052/1099 (96%) and 649/836 (78%) patients, respectively. The safety profiles for the two stents (myocardial infarction (MI), cardiac death and/or target vessel revascularization (TVR)) were similar (ZoMaxx 8.7% vs. Taxus 6.9%, p=NS). The primary endpoint of 9-month TVR occurred more frequently after treatment with ZoMaxx (6.8%) as compared with Taxus (4.2%), therefore the primary clinical endpoint was not met. However, the 9-month in-segment late lumen loss for ZoMaxx (0.29 ± 0.47mm) and Taxus (0.22 ± 0.41mm, p=NS) were similar, thus satisfying the primary angiographic endpoint. Secondary endpoints of the rates of in-segment and in-stent binary restenosis were also similar (5.9% vs. 5.8%, 7.8% vs. 7.9%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: At 9months, the ZoMaxx stent failed to achieve the primary endpoint of non-inferiority in TVR to the Taxus stent, but safety endpoints were equal between the two stent systems.

Comparison of vascular response to zotarolimus-eluting stent vs paclitaxel-eluting stent implantation: pooled IVUS results from the ZoMaxx I and II trials.

BACKGROUND: The ZoMaxx I and II trials were randomized controlled studies of the zotarolimus-eluting, phosphorylcholine-coated, TriMaxx stent for the treatment of de novo coronary lesions. The aim of this study was to compare the vessel response between zotarolimus- (ZES) and paclitaxel-eluting stents (PES) using intravascular ultrasound (IVUS). METHODS AND RESULTS: Data were obtained from the ZoMaxx I and II trials, in which a standard IVUS parameter was available in 263 cases (baseline and 9-months follow up). Neointima-free frame ratio was calculated as the number of frames without IVUS-detectable neointima divided by the total number of frames within the stent. While an increase in vessel and plaque was observed in PES from baseline to follow up, there was no significant change in ZES. At follow up, % neointimal obstruction was significantly higher (15.4 ± 8.8% vs 11.3 ± 9.7%), and minimum lumen area at follow up was significantly smaller in ZES compared to PES. However, the incidence of IVUS-defined restenosis (maximum cross-sectional narrowing >60%) was similar in the 2 groups (3.2% vs 6.7%). Neointima-free frame ratio was significantly lower in ZES. There were 5 cases of late incomplete stent apposition in PES and none in ZES. CONCLUSIONS: These IVUS results demonstrate a similar incidence of severe narrowing between these 2 DES. There was a moderate increase in neointimal hyperplasia that was associated with a greater extent of neointimal coverage in ZES compared with PES.

A randomized comparison of the Endeavor zotarolimus-eluting stent versus the TAXUS paclitaxel-eluting stent in de novo native coronary lesions 12-month outcomes from the ENDEAVOR IV trial.

OBJECTIVES: The ENDEAVOR IV (Randomized Comparison of Zotarolimus-Eluting and Paclitaxel-Eluting Stents in Patients with Coronary Artery Disease) trial evaluated the safety and efficacy of the zotarolimus-eluting stent (ZES) compared with the paclitaxel-eluting stent (PES). BACKGROUND: First-generation drug-eluting stents have reduced angiographic and clinical restenosis, but long-term safety remains controversial. A second-generation drug-eluting stent, which delivers zotarolimus, a potent antiproliferative agent, via a biocompatible phosphorylcholine polymer on a cobalt alloy thin-strut stent has shown promising experimental and early clinical results. METHODS: This is a prospective, randomized (1:1), single-blind, controlled trial comparing outcomes of patients with single de novo coronary lesions treated with ZES or PES. The primary end point was noninferiority of 9-month target vessel failure defined as cardiac death, myocardial infarction, or target vessel revascularization. RESULTS: Among a total of 1,548 patients assigned to ZES (n = 773) or PES (n = 775), at 9 months, ZES was noninferior to PES with rates of target vessel failure 6.6% versus 7.1%, respectively (p(noninferiority) < or = 0.001). There were fewer periprocedural myocardial infarctions with ZES (0.5% vs. 2.2%; p = 0.007), whereas at 12 months, there were no significant differences between groups in rates of cardiac death, myocardial infarction, target vessel revascularization, or stent thrombosis. Although incidence of 8-month binary angiographic in-segment restenosis was higher in patients treated with ZES versus PES (15.3% vs. 10.4%; p = 0.284), rates of 12-month target lesion revascularization were similar (4.5% vs. 3.2%; p = 0.228), especially in patients without planned angiographic follow-up (3.6% vs. 3.2%; p = 0.756). CONCLUSIONS: These findings demonstrate that ZES has similar clinical safety and efficacy compared with PES in simple and medium complexity single de novo coronary lesions. (ENDEAVOR IV Clinical Trial; NCT00217269).

Frequency and clinical consequences associated with sidebranch occlusion during stent implantation using zotarolimus-eluting and paclitaxel-eluting coronary stents.

BACKGROUND: Myocardial infarction (MI) after drug-eluting stent placement has been associated with an unfavorable late prognosis. Although the etiology of periprocedural MI is multifactorial, sidebranch occlusion may be an important contributing factor. We sought to identify the incidence of sidebranch occlusion during zotarolimus-eluting stent (ZES) and paclitaxel-eluting stent (PES) placement and to relate sidebranch occlusion to the occurrence of periprocedural MI. METHODS AND RESULTS: Angiograms were reviewed from patients randomly assigned to treatment with a ZES (597 patients; 943 sidebranches) or a PES (619 patients; 977 sidebranches). Sidebranch occlusion was defined as Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction flow grade 0 or 1. Sidebranch occlusion was correlated with frequency of MI, as assessed by the creatine phosphokinase MB isoenzyme. Sidebranch occlusion occurred less often after the first stent deployment in patients treated with ZES (2.2%) than in patients treated with PES (4.0%; P=0.032). A similar reduction in the frequency of sidebranch occlusion at any point during the procedure was found in patients treated with ZES (2.9% versus 4.8% in PES patients; P=0.042). Multivariable predictors of sidebranch occlusion included baseline sidebranch stenosis, complex lesion morphology, smaller baseline minimal lumen diameters, and the use of a PES. Of the 20 patients with MI within 30 days of the procedure, 30% had evidence of sidebranch occlusion during the stent procedure. CONCLUSIONS: Patients treated with ZES were less likely to develop sidebranch occlusion during stent placement than patients treated with PES. Less frequent sidebranch occlusion with ZES may have contributed to the lower frequency rates of periprocedural MI in this study.

Clinical and angiographic outcomes in diabetics from the ENDEAVOR IV trial: randomized comparison of zotarolimus- and paclitaxel-eluting stents in patients with coronary artery disease.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to examine outcomes related to the use of the Endeavor zotarolimus-eluting stent (ZES) (Medtronic CardioVascular, Santa Rosa, California) compared with the TAXUS paclitaxel-eluting stent (PES) (Boston Scientific Corp., Natick, Massachusetts) in the 477 patients with diabetes mellitus (DM) enrolled in the randomized ENDEAVOR IV (Randomized Comparison of Zotarolimus- and Paclitaxel-Eluting Stents in Patients with Coronary Artery Disease) trial. BACKGROUND: Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in diabetic patients is associated with increased rates of restenosis-related end points compared with PCI in nondiabetic patients. Although ZES has been associated with similar clinical efficacy compared with PES in the overall trial population of the ENDEAVOR IV trial, whether these results are maintained in the higher-risk restenosis subgroup of patients with DM has not been determined. METHODS: Clinical and angiographic outcomes were compared according to randomized treatment assignment to either ZES or PES. RESULTS: Baseline characteristics were similar among ZES (n = 241) and PES (n = 236) diabetic patients, with slightly longer lesion lengths in PES-treated patients (12.9 mm vs. 14.0 mm, p = 0.041). Among the 86 DM patients assigned to routine angiographic follow-up (18% of the overall DM cohort), in-stent percent diameter stenosis at 8 months was greater among ZES-treated patients (32.9 vs. 21.1, p = 0.023), with a trend toward higher in-stent late loss. One-year clinical outcomes were similar among DM patients treated with either ZES or PES (target vessel failure: 8.6% vs. 10.8%, p = 0.53; target lesion revascularization: 6.9% vs. 5.8%, p = 0.70; target vessel revascularization: 8.6% vs. 9.4%, p = 0.87). There were no significant interactions between DM status and stent type with respect to the outcomes measured, and the relative efficacy/safety of ZES and PES were similar among insulin- and noninsulin-requiring subgroups. CONCLUSIONS: One-year clinical outcomes were similar among DM patients treated with ZES and PES in the ENDEAVOR IV trial. These findings parallel the overall trial results, which demonstrated similar efficacy and safety of ZES and PES for single de novo coronary lesions.

Late safety, efficacy, and cost-effectiveness of a zotarolimus-eluting stent compared with a paclitaxel-eluting stent in patients with de novo coronary lesions: 2-year follow-up from the ENDEAVOR IV trial (Randomized, Controlled Trial of the Medtronic Endeavor Drug [ABT-578] Eluting Coronary Stent System Versus the Taxus Paclitaxel-Eluting Coronary Stent System in De Novo Native Coronary Artery Lesions).

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to assess, after 2 years of follow-up, the safety, efficacy, and cost-effectiveness of a zotarolimus-eluting stent (ZES) compared with a paclitaxel-eluting stent (PES) in patients with native coronary lesions. BACKGROUND: Early drug-eluting stents were associated with a small but significant incidence of very late stent thrombosis (VLST), occurring >1 year after the index procedure. The ZES has shown encouraging results in clinical trials. METHODS: The ENDEAVOR IV trial (Randomized, Controlled Trial of the Medtronic Endeavor Drug [ABT-578] Eluting Coronary Stent System Versus the Taxus Paclitaxel-Eluting Coronary Stent System in De Novo Native Coronary Artery Lesions), a randomized (1:1), single-blind, controlled trial (n = 1,548) compared ZES versus PES in patients with single de novo coronary lesions. Two-year follow-up was obtained in 96.0% of ZES and 95.4% of PES patients. The primary end point was target vessel failure (TVF), and safety end points included Academic Research Consortium-defined stent thrombosis. Economic end points analyzed included quality-adjusted survival, medical costs, and relative cost-effectiveness of ZES and PES. RESULTS: The TVF at 2 years was similar in ZES and PES patients (11.1% vs. 13.1%, p = 0.232). There were fewer myocardial infarctions (MIs) in ZES patients (p = 0.022), due to fewer periprocedural non-Q-wave MIs and fewer late MIs between 1 and 2 years. Late MIs were associated with increased VLST (PES: 6 vs. ZES: 1; p = 0.069). Target lesion revascularization was similar comparing ZES with PES (5.9% vs. 4.6%; p = 0.295), especially in patients without planned angiographic follow-up (5.2% vs. 4.9%; p = 0.896). The cost-effectiveness of ZES and PES was similar. CONCLUSIONS: After 2 years of follow-up, ZES demonstrated efficacy and cost-effectiveness comparable to PES, with fewer MIs and a trend toward less VLST. (The ENDEAVOR IV Clinical Trial: A Trial of a Coronary Stent System in Coronary Artery Lesions; NCT00217269).

First human experience with local delivery of novel antisense AVI-4126 with Infiltrator catheter in de novo native and restenotic coronary arteries: 6-month clinical and angiographic follow-up from AVAIL study.

BACKGROUND: A novel antisense phosphorodiamidate morpholino oligomer, AVI-4126, was shown to be effective in reducing neointimal formation in different animal models following delivery by pluronic gels, porous balloon catheters, and coated stents. The purpose of the AVAIL study was to investigate both the safety and the efficacy of AVI-4126 delivered locally via Infiltrator catheter after percutaneous coronary intervention in humans. METHODS: The AVAIL trial is a prospective, evaluator-blinded, randomized study including clinical follow-up at 30 days and 6 months after intervention and 6-month angiographic and intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) follow-up. An Infiltrator catheter was advanced to target lesion and either drug was delivered (Groups A and B) or catheter was advanced (Group C) after stent implantation in de novo lesions or percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty in restenotic lesions. Primary end points include major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), target vessel revascularization (TVR), angiographic restenosis, and IVUS at 6 months. RESULTS: Forty-four patients with either de novo lesions or restenosis were randomized into three groups: (A) low dose, 3 mg (19 patients); (B) high dose, 10 mg (15 patients), and (C) control (10 patients). Baseline angiographic characteristics did not differ between the groups (reference vessel diameter, 2.5-4 mm; lesion length, <16 mm). Procedural success was 81. 82% (unable to advance Infiltrator catheter to target lesion in 8 patients, 5 from Group B and 3 from Group C). There was no in-hospital or 30-day MACE recorded in any group. Clinical follow-up was available in 25 patients. At 6 months, four patients (50%) from the control group (Group C, n=8) and 7 (100%) patients from the low-dose group (Group A, n=7) required TVR. In contrast, in the high-dose group (Group B, n=10) only 1 patient (10%) needed TVR. Angiographic follow-up in 25 patients (Group A, 8 patients; Group B, 7 patients; and Group C, 10 patients) demonstrated late loss of 1.4+ to 0.54, 0.8+ to 0.55, and 1.5+ to 0.65, respectively (P=.025). Binary restenosis was 38% in Group C (control), 29% in Group A (low dose), and 0% in Group B (high dose). CONCLUSION: Local delivery of antisense is feasible. These preliminary findings from the small cohort of patients require confirmation in a larger trial utilizing more sophisticated drug-eluting technologies.